SMAN's The Ancient World at War (AWAW)

[sman1975]

Thanks, @YINGCHENG. I tried to make them help with the immersive qualities in the mod, like so many other things.

You points about some of the events is well-taken. But, also remember, the overall damage from most events is randomized, so the description in the spreadsheet show the worst-case impact.

However, I'll look at the "man-made" negative events, such as Treasury Raids, Wonder Maintenance, Rebellion, Great Fire, Great Flood, and look for ways those can be mitigated by a civ. For example, if a city has a Medieval Water Works, then perhaps the chance of a Great Fire should be lowered. More of these such buildings (Cloaca, wells, etc.), should also lower the chance of occurrence cumulatively. These "mitigations" will lower both the chance of an event happening, and also the amount of damage they cause. And, as always, AI will be hit lighter than human players.

Some of these, however, should remain in the realm of "acts of the gods": Drought, Maunder Minimum, Earthquake, Wondering Monster, Great Flood/Tsunami - there's not much humans can do (especially in the pre-Industrial Eras) to stop these events. I'll look at some of the available buildings (wells, irrigation, hospitals, aqueducts, etc.) and see if I can find some mitigations to damage. There's no buildings, etc., available to lower the overall chance of these events, however. I'm still pretty adamant about keeping the Great Fire and Earthquake in the events list, and making them hurt badly. But, they only impact a single city per event, so hopefully, this can lower the overall pain of the event.

The only use I see for spies is to prevent the Treasury Raids. As per the previous discussion, the chances/impact of this event will be lowered by things like the Constabulary, Police Station, Campus Martius, City Gates, Dungeon, etc. I can easily add that if a city has a friendly spy (counter-espionage) in the city, then the chances/impact will be even lower. I suppose, however, for fairness sake, that if a different civ has a spy in the city, then the chances/impacts should also increase? Just a thought...

I've even toyed with the idea of adding a simple popup menu, accessed through the "Additional Information" menus, that allows a player to actually turn the entire events system off, if it's too impacting. May be an item for V1.1, though...

Haven't gotten to AWAW+WAW testing yet. Am still messing around with adjustments to the GameSpeed_Turns table, trying to get the Calendar at the top of the screen to look at least a little like it should historically. It's not as straightforward as it should be, and each change takes a good 30 minutes to test...

But, while the game is autorunning in the background, I've experimented a bit with the branding of the mod. Have a few versions I could use for the "teaser" photo that Steam uses. I'm definitely no artist, and have no eye for what looks great. But, here's what I've come up with so far - any one a better fit than the others?

 

[arievillo]

I am between 3 and 4, they are more aligned with the arts of their other mods. That's it, i would go with 4.

 

[sman1975]

Events slide in Post #9 updated with the adjustments discussed earlier. May chance during testing, but this is enough to start adjusting the code.

 

[YINGCHENG]

Count my vote on #3.

 

[sman1975]

Dang - a tie. Now I'm going to have to ask my Mrs...

Testing is improving - am getting the mod to consistently hit Classical Era about 500 B.C., and Medieval about 500 A.D. in a Standard sized map and game speed. Still working on getting the timing right on later Eras. Once I get these numbers right, I'll scale them down/up according to the same ratios the game uses for the other game speeds. Might work, but I'm a bit pessimistic after spending about 2 days running this down.

Have finished the era background slides. Not great, but good enough. These appear in the Steam packet to introduce the new content for each Era:



Now, the actual work begins on the Steam Packet. Basically transforming most of the slides on the first page into a tabular format on the slides. Gives me something to do while the game is auto-running in the background...

 

[sman1975]

Here are what the Era slides will look like - Ancient Era shown here:



And so on...


I toyed around with the two basic branding designs, here are the updated versions:




Still testing - have the calendar looking "more or less right" up to the Enlightenment Era for Standard game speed. A few more tests should get it working for the basic AWAW mod. I'll need to look at it more closely when testing the AWAW + WAW mega mod.

 

[sman1975]

By George, I think I've finally cracked the GameSpeed_Turns conundrum I've spent the last couple of days on. The mod is just about perfect on getting Civs to the various Eras (Ancient - Industrial) within a decade or two as they did historically. A caveat: this has only been tested on a Standard map size, normal game speed, and Prince (standard) difficulty. I'm making an assumption (hopefully not toooooo far off base) that I can scale the other game speeds (Marathon, Epic, and Quick), using their relationships to the original settings for normal game speed. As almost everything impacting the game based on game speed scales off the settings for the Standard game speed, this doesn't feel like it's too far a leap. Still, it hasn't been tested yet.

And unfortunately, I've not been able to test the AWAW+WAW mega mod yet either. This will require some adjustments to the working settings I have for stand-alone AWAW. I don't think it will be nearly as much trouble (as I've finally figured out how to beat this part of the game into submission), I just haven't had time to get to it yet. Seems like every time I get rolling, my better half finds things for me to do that have nothing to do with modding...

So, I'm apologizing in advance for not having AWAW released yet. It still might take another couple of days to run enough test games with the mega mod and the new Events testing, but I'm hoping that will be just about it. Am shooting for the weekend, and with a bit of luck I can get it there. The Steam packet is about 75% done, so that should wrap up tomorrow.

Appreciate your patience!

 

[sman1975]

Question: please take a look at Post #6 (Religions) - and let me know: which normal Civ5 Civs would benefit from a change in their "preferred religion" settings? I'm already changing the Celts from Catholicism to Druidism, Assyria to Ashurism , Babylon to Chaldaenism, Egypt to Pesedjet , Greece to Dodekatheism, China to Wuism, Japan to Koshinto, and Korea to Muism. I'm not sure what/if to change Rome or India, or any of the rest of the Civs. I don't want to change simply because we can, but wouldn't mind getting a bit more tailored choices. Appreciate any suggestions. Thanks!

 

[sman1975]

Quick update: still testing, trying to get Epic game speed right. Just not working very well. Slower game speeds add more uncertainty into test results (more ways for civs behave differently during games, so they advance more or less quickly than in other games). Makes it difficult to know how much you can trust the numbers from one game. Only way to beat this is to run many, many test games and average out the results. Which is what's happening now. I've got "decent" results in Ancient - Medieval Eras, getting close on Renaissance. Hard to believe it will take a week of constant testing to get these numbers to a point where they look almost close...

One of the things I've been working on while the test games are going on in the background is the "unit namer" script - which gives tailored names to units created in the first half of the game - sort of like how WAW does the same thing for the second half. Have done a lot of research (it's not surprising how little information is available and useful on this subject, especially the further back in time you look). I'm not sure if the namer script will make it into the BETA version (0.0), but I hope to have it in 1.0. Here is a sketch of the design:

If anyone has any suggestions, let me know. Thanks!

 

[askmarcoanything]

Hi SMAN

Your sketch is very similar in scope to what i had envisioned for a unit namer with your mod! Seeing as you're perspective of this is AWW, i would like to help from someone who's perspectives has been playing WAW for quite a while .

• Considering that AWW is relegated to the Ancient to Renaissance eras, i think that splitting up the naming by 2 periods is an appropriate thing to do, especially as when units upgrade they keep their unit role (vs WAW where ranged becomes armoured).
  • One concern i will have that could come up is if a technology puts the civ in an advanced era, but the technology is not that of the advanced unit. If we were to take this system in WAW, if I had researched Astronomy and entered Renaissance without researching Gunpowder, would naming a newly created Pikeman unit become "19th Regiment of Arquebusier (York)" ?
  • I also think using "Yeoman" for Ranged units is a genuine fantastic choice, as "Yeoman Archer" fit Ranged units, and there are Armoured units that are "Yeomanry" (although i think technically different as their history comes from cavalry but never mind). In this case, maybe it would be best to stretch history a little bit, and call Medieval/Renaissance/Enlightenment Ranged "Yeomanry" and Medieval Melee something else?
  
  
• >Calling a melee unit the "XXI Legion" or "Legio XXI" in the Renaissance will harm the immersive qualities the namer script is trying to expand.
  
  To clarify what you mean, do you wish that units are renamed as they enter one era/period to the other so that early units named "Lochos" will become "Foot"? I think that would be an incorrect decision to take, but maybe an option made in a menu: "Update unit names by era/period?". If you meant this to upgrade the unit namer to this sketch, then i understand what you mean.
  
  
• Unfortunately my knowledge of history does not go too far back before the 19th century, so i don't think that i could comment much on the unit naming prior to then. I thought that in the scope of WAW my suggestions would have been adequate .
  • I will say that in reference of mounted units, other options of Unit Types could be "Dragoons".
    
  • For Option 6 notes, instead of having those be Capital only, maybe honorifics can be sprinkled around by chance, like how the Naval units are handled? Just a thought.
    
  • For Option 7 (non capital), i think the appropriate format would be "(Ordinal Number) (Echelon) (Unit Name) - (Origin)"- For example "23rd Battery Royal Artillery" as the form currently used by the Royal Artillery. (Further, besides the HAC, I'm not sure that the Royal Artillery uses Company). (VERY ENGLAND FOCUSED)
  • With regards to that last note, are you sure that Echelons should change as the eras change? An upgraded Yeomanry Company (60-250 personnel) that would have the same (if not stronger performance) than a Regiment of Foot (500 - 3000 personnel). (Numbers taken from NATO sizes)
• Another point of contention would be whether the naming system would be too Euro-Centric for AWW; It would seem weird if a Chinese or Japanese unit called themselves Legions or Ballistariii. I would assume that you would implement a system similar to WAW where certain civs would have unique names, as I would assume the ones in the example would most likely be England. I think as such we would need to think harder on neutral names for units for AWW?
  • Maybe Greek/Roman for Ancient, and then custom for Medieval+? (Not sure if it will work, imagine Persian units named Greek)
• As a menu option, maybe you can have players choose if they would like to stick to one naming script for the entire game? (For example, they want their units to be named the Enlightenment method throughout the game, or the use of arabic numbers in place of roman numerals and vice versa). Although not totally realistic, it would be a immersion to the players choice.

I would like to end by thanking you for drawing your sketch up! I think it is definitely headed in the right direction, and can't wait to see the WAW version of it!

 

[sman1975]

Yeah, I'm just trying to put a structure in place. It won't be perfect for all civs, but will hopefully add a bit of flair to all of them to varying degrees. A few comments:

- AWAW is focused on Ancient through Enlightenment (~1600 - 1800).

- In the WAW namer, upgraded units kept their old names, which seemed appropriate as in many armies, they have rather archaic names (Cavalry, etc.), even though the equipment is dramatically different. Part of maintaining some military heritage, links to the past. However, the AWAW namer will not do this until the Medieval Era and later - the Greek and Roman-based naming will drop out once we get to the English unit names in the Medieval and later Eras.

- On Astronomy vs. Gunpowder - it's a fair point. WAW didn't have this problem, as there was only one set of names available to units, regardless of the Era in which they spawned. The easiest way to manage this is to look at the unit that is created, get its prereq technology, then get the Era for that tech. Only takes a couple lines of code. Once you have the tech's Era, you'd simply name the new unit based on the rules for that unit's UnitCombatInfos setting. It's actually pretty straightforward code. So, the player's current Era isn't really used in the naming process, only the prereq tech's Era. Good catch.

- Medieval Era is set at 800-1400 AD. And it's true the term "Yeoman" didn't really appear much until the first half of the 15th century. The problem I'm having, after spending most of the day (between test game turns) researching the problem, there really aren't many "standardized" unit names for the basic unit types. It gets a bit better in Renaissance, but Medieval is largely a blank slate. I didn't find any useful examples for melee units, except for "Skirmishers" but that title is already being used for an Enlightenment Era Infantry unit. There is also, perhaps a term like "(Honourable) Company of Gentlemen" or "(Honourable) Troop of Gentlemen" or "(Honourable) Gentlemen at Arms". I thought, even it being a chronological and historical stretch, that the term "Yeomanry" was a better fit than any of these 3 alternatives. However, to avoid confusion, it's probably better to use one of them, even if I'm not thrilled about any particular one. If we do use one, I'm leaning towards "Troop of Gentleman" as I actually found more than a couple of references to melee units bearing that particular naming. Am still open to any suggestions, however, if we come up with a better alternative.

- As mentioned earlier, no Medieval Era unit will have a Greek or Latin name. Those names will be replaced by their Medieval (or later) replacement. Now, granted, you might see a few Legio's in the early Medieval Era, if the owner hasn't been able to upgrade them. But, as both WAW and AWAW have an "AI unit upgrader" function, the AI should be upgrading quite often. A human player might keep an archaic unit in the inventory, for ceremonial purposes near the capital, but you wouldn't want to fight with them. So, the quick/easy/cheap/forced upgrading of units should help mitigate the harm of archaic unit types/names harming the immersive mod qualities.

- To clarify, when an Ancient unit upgrades to a Classical one, its name will change. When a Classical unit upgrades to a Medieval one, it's name will change. When a Medieval (or later) unit upgrades, its name will not change. In the case where both AWAW and WAW (aka the "mega mod") are enabled, I'll probably force a name change when going from Enlightenment to La Belle Époque Eras, but I'm still not 100% on that. Maybe just the melee units, or perhaps mounted change names, while the other types do not.

- "Dragoons" was an option for the Enlightenment Era mounted units. However, in researching various European Orders of Battle for various campaigns/battles, the word Uhlan appeared much more often that Dragoons. Additionally, the Uhlan unit appears in the "early" part of that Era, while the Dragoons appear at the "late" part of that Era. Seemed more logical to me to use a name that was available during the entire Era, not just at the end. It's slightly more historically accurate, and fits better in the game's overall design, so I'm pretty happy with Uhlan over Dragoon as the "typical" unit type for the Era.

- On honorifics, I can see a case for it, but what started my down the "capital only" path was the first honorific I looked at was the "Guards" one. And, as the Guards were typically Life Guards, directly responsible for protecting the sovereign, it just seemed logical that the honorifics would heavily involve people and things in the capital. There are many examples, however, in English/British history where the sovereign stood up units in the hinterlands, as a way of growing influence in support in areas far away from the capital. But, in game terms, this seems a bit messy. The reason of using the honorific was to drop the originating city name of the capital, i.e., you'd never see the word "London" in any unit on the map. The unit names are going to be quite long enough as is, so I need to take just a bit of care so it won't completely break the unit tooltip (the code that displays the unit name when you hover the mouse over the unit). Naval units are named completely randomly. But, if I randomly allow honorifics form units from any city, later on, you won't get the same "feel" of knowing what the provenance for any particular unit is. After a turn or two, you'd forget that the "King's Own 23rd Regiment of Foot" came from Southampton, and simply assume it was trained in London for the rest of the game. This is a step away from the clarity/immersion I'm going for in using names in the first place - especially names with originating cities at any point.

- Artillery (Option 7) is actually one of the areas where there are clear historical examples of unit names, dating back to the time of Henry VIII of England. Option 7 was built around those historical examples. These units did use the "company" echelon in the Medieval Era (although it technically wasn't an "echelon" at all, more of an incorporated group of like-minded fellows who formed a unit, then sold their services to the sovereign). However, in the Renaissance Eras and latter, after the Office of Ordinance was establish in the 1460's, the term company was still being used for artillery units. Even into the 1700's, you'd still see that term being used for the most basic structure of these units. It wasn't until the later part of the 18th century, the word "battery" starting to come into parlance for describing the based artillery formation. I can see using company for Renaissance units, but I also see a strong case for Enlightenment artillery to keep the battery echelon. I suppose, I wanted to switch to battery early, as there are already so many units using the company designation.

- The formations/naming conventions are quite English/British focused, primarily because the mod is offered only in English, and the English have such good, consistent, and plentiful examples of how their units were named. WAW offers a few alternative languages' names, and I hope to add some of these in at a later time. However, it took the better part of 2 days to devise an English version, and it's my native language. I don't have the wherewithal to go through that kind of work again in a completely different language that I don't speak. Once the English naming conventions are final, if anyone wants to research a different language, I'll be happy to add those in for any civ (game or custom) that they'd recommend. All I'm saying is that I don't think I'll have the time or inclination to do it myself. The boats are different - I already have several tables of boat names in different languages from WAW, and I believe that most of those could be easily reused.

- Another data research problem is coming up with 20-50 names for different civ's Field Marshals. Some civs will be quite easy. Others it will be impossible. There will be a huge "generic" name table, but those are simply a large sample of names from the other civs' tables. It's not hard work, but it is time-consuming. It looks fantastic when it's done, however.

- The point about echelon creep is a good one, one I struggled with in WAW as well. The echelons are supposed to depict the "standard" unit of maneuver for the armies of those Eras. And, as unit "structures" were anything but structured in the Middle Ages, I'm fairly happy with using these escalating echelons. We really didn't start seeing consistent unit sizes (well, except for the Romans) until the late Enlightenment Era. So, what one army would call a division might have the same combat power of a company in another army in those early, unstructured militaries. In the Industrial/LBE Eras, I can see this being a problem, as by then most armies that had a division, that unit would carry about the same amount of personnel and combat effectiveness of another army's division. In the Middle Ages, that simply would rarely be the case. A long way of saying that I think the use of echelons in the table about is perfectly acceptable for the time-frame being covered. The armies of the day simply weren't that structured, even among themselves in various times. In later Ears, it would not be OK to play so fast and loose.

- The naming convention is completely Euro-centric, almost completely British-centric from the Medieval Eras and later. I'm open to adding alternative language names for various civs, but I'm not open to actually doing the research. It was pretty easy for WAW, as there were several Orders of Battle available to research the problem - armies were quite structured by then and used consistent naming conventions. But what I've seen from trying to research the same way for pre-Industrial armies, these data simply aren't available and it will take a tremendous amount of time to come up with these. So, I'd rather add an alternative language version of the basic names above, than to try and genericize the names in the first place. Those generic names will do more immersive damage than the ones currently in the table, making the entire use of a namer script an active of vandalism rather than a means of improve immersion.

- I'm not very sure how much flexibility will be provided to players via a menu option. If I'm pretty happy with the namer script (for example, if we have several languages included), there may be no options at all. I think the best time to look at this issue is when the initial version of the (English only) script is up and running, and players have had some time with it to see how well it accomplishes its primary goal - improve immersion. I'll rely on feedback of what players would like to see to improve the namer, then look at how we provide that - either through changing the script, or provide an options popup. Using various combinations of naming approaches as the game progresses is not really difficult at all.

- Finally, the version that emerges for AWAW will almost entirely be the same for the script put into WAW at a later date. The design that address the basic, evolving nature of naming units throughout early history will address the same problem for either mod. There will be a few small changes that addresses how almost all units will change their names from the AWAW versions to the WAW versions: when under what conditions will need to be looked at, if it isn't already solved in the AWAW version.

OK, time to get the day started. Appreciate the feedback - it does help improve the design. And I've noticed quite a lot - every hour spent in design saves me 5-10 hours of coding/reworking code later on. It's why I won't start on the new namer script until the table above is final.

 

[sman1975]

Catastrophe....

Computer BSOD'ed on me this morning, took out one of my monitors with it on the way down...

Got the computer running again and have been fixing little problems all over the place. Fortunately, I back up the mod at least once a day, sometimes more. So no worries there. But, the monitor is FUBAR.

Am off in a few to Best Buy - found a nice replacement monitor on sale, a Samsung model about half its normal price, new/not refurbed. After our family's weekly brunch, I'll be back to install the monitor, reconfigure my rig, and hope to be testing the mod again sometime in the afternoon.

Probably the good Lord's way of letting me know I'm not taking Lent seriously enough...

Back online later. Hope y'all have a great day!

 

[askmarcoanything]

Thanks for your response!

• At the end of it, you are definitely more knowledgeable in history than I am, and i respect that immensely. (Sorry for saying Renessaince, i meant to type Enlightenment!)
  I think that the decisions you will take with the unit namer are the correct ones, and will take the immersion in the right direction.
  
  
• >I'll probably force a name change when going from Enlightenment to La Belle Époque Eras, but I'm still not 100% on that. Maybe just the melee units, or perhaps mounted change names, while the other types do not.
  I think keeping the name (or at least parts of the name) would be the correct thing to do
  • In the described scenario, i think there are 2 outcomes for Melee units at least:
    • if unit names were not changed in LBE
      1-20 Company of Yeomanry (City)
      20-32 Battalion of Arquebusier (City)
      33-49 Regiment of Foot (City)
      50-64 Infantry Division (City)
      
      OR
      
      
    • if unit names were changed in LBE
      1-64 Infantry Division (City)

If its the latter, i think that all this work in preserving unit names would be wasted​

• • However, history shows that between 1880 and today, (British) units slowly amalgamated and changed their names. I think there could be two approaches to this:
    • Retaining unit history while promoting a contemporary naming convention. For example, 19th Company of Yeomanry (York) to become:
      • 19th Infantry Regiment - Yeomanry (York)
      • 19th Yeomanry Infantry Regiment (York)
        
      • 19th Battalion, Infantry Regiment - Yeomanry (York)
        
        As such, Infantry regiments built in LBE and beyond (if going with the current WAW style)
        
      • 50th Infantry Regiment (York)
      • 50th Battalion, Infantry Regiment (York)
        
        OR
        
    • With reference to the point about Echelons, maybe an alternative could be to upgrade to a standardized echelon (Regiment) as we move to La Belle Époque and beyond?
      • Units before LBE Units at LBE
        1-20 Company of Yeomanry (City) -> 1-20 Regiment of Yeomanry (City)
        20-32 Battalion of Arquebusier (City) -> 20-32 Regiment of Arquebusier (City)
        33-49 Regiment of Foot (City) -> 33-49 Regiment of Foot (City)
        New Unit -> 50-64 Infantry Regiment (City)
        
      • Maybe this could occur with all other unit types as well (Mounted, Ranged, Siege, Engineers)
        
      • Further, when units are upgraded in the future era, do you think we should again consider a name change?
        
  • With the Mounted units, i think that gets a little trickier as units eventually become armoured cars and anti-tank helicopters rather than armoured tanks. I think it would fair for the name change to occur when the halftrack upgrades to helicopters: 65 (Historical identifier) Regiment/Squadron Army Air Corps (City).
    
• With reference to languages, I agree wholeheartedly with your decision to keep it the way it is and to have proposals of other languages added after hand.
  
  
• Last word with honorifics: Maybe they can be won after a certain number of battles .
  23rd Regiment of Foot (Southhampton) -> King's Own 23rd Regiment of Foot (Southhampton)

Looking forward to hearing more from you!

 

[sman1975]

Hey! Am back online, with a nice 32" LG monitor...

Am starting back with testing, but need to adjust quite a few things, as the new monitor is a lot bigger than the last one (27"). The great thing about it is I can see a lot more of the code in ModBuddy, which hopefully makes modding a bit easier.

 

[sman1975]

Hey, @askmarcoanything. Not sure if I know more about history, or perhaps I've just been around a lot longer...

In the described scenario, i think there are 2 outcomes for Melee units at least

I'm not wild about the idea of having different echelons for melee units reflected in the names. For other unit types, no problem, but not for the primary ground combat unit. The "mix-n-match" echelons are "cute" when talking about archers, etc., but to me a division is a division is a division. So, I'm almost certain that I'll approach it in one of two ways: (1) either force a name change the instant a civ becomes industrial (renaming all the melee units as "XX Infantry Division" , or (2) force the change on melee units when they upgrade to their Industrial/LBE Era counterparts. I'm leaning towards #1, simply to avoid the confusion of too many echelons as you've described in the first outcome. I suppose it's possible I could parse the unit type from the unit name (keeping Yeomanry, Arquebusier, etc.), but I'd prefer to give them the same echelon to avoid such confusion. But, I'm not so sure the "23rd Arquebusier Division" would make sense in the Industrial Era. Perhaps "23rd Arquebusier Regiment" might look better, but eventually (when? I wonder) all of the melee units need to become a "division."

Additionally, I'm not sure about originating city as a suffix for Industrial and later melee/gunpowder units. It's not currently in the WAW namer, and I'm not 100% sure it should be in the next WAW update. However, I'm definitely not set against adding a city name. It always seems to make the game feel more "personal" - and you do get attached to your units as you watch them evolve from the Ancient to Information Eras.

Using the Brit example from 1880, et al, I think of all the examples, I'd prefer this: "19th Yeomanry Infantry Division (York)" - we're still keeping the "Yeomanry" historical name, even if it no longer makes much sense. Plus, it's shorter... Really long unit names can be broken but the Unit Flag Manager UI, and look quite awful. Ultimately, any melee/infantry unit in the Industrial/LBE Eras will have to be the same echelon, whatever that is.

With reference to the point about Echelons, maybe an alternative could be to upgrade to a standardized echelon (Regiment) as we move to La Belle Époque and beyond?

I like everything you said in this paragraph, except for one detail: I leaning towards making these these conversions to Regiments occur in the Enlightenment Era, with a similar upgrade to division in the Industrial/LBE (or perhaps in Modern/Great War Eras). I think this fixes many problems. Historically, in the early part of the Napoleonic Era, most French units used a "demi-brigade" designation, which was used to avoid any references to the previous regime's regiments.

And regiments were the building block of most European armies well into the mid-19th century. Divisions were used, but they were usually ad-hoc or administrative organizations built around certain mission-sets needed at the time, and when those circumstances changed, the regiments assigned to those divisions went somewhere else. It's really in the second half of the 19th century we start to see permanent divisions, so perhaps using the Division as the standard melee unit in Industrial/LBE Eras might be a tad premature.

As far as non-melee/infantry units are concerned, unlike the chart in Post #109, the echelon for Ranged, Siege would become Regiments in the Enlightenment Era, but the Recon and Engineers would remain at Committee and Battalion respectively.

Also, on alternative language naming, that's going to have to come from other interested players. I've worked with some players in the past, and perhaps can reach out to them to provide some help in this area. For native speakers of those languages, this problem is much smaller than it would be for me.

I like your suggestion about awarding Honorifics. I'm thinking that there should be a relatively small chance that when a unit becomes about Level 4 (basically the number of promotions it has), it could be awarded a random Honorific, but the "Guards" one would be reserved for units created in the capital city - but again, only as a result of obtaining the correct level and never simply because it was built in the capital.

Looking back over the posts today, they do have a certain "stream of consciousness" vibe to them, as I've worked through the thoughts. I'll try to bring some order to those thoughts and update the chart in Post #109 to reflect the updated framework. I'll add columns to the spreadsheet showing what happens to the units when they hit ENL and IND Eras. I hope to get this updated version posted tomorrow. These extended discussions save me a tremendous amount of coding/recoding time, so I'm glad we're working on nailing the framework to the floor before a single line of code is written.

 

[sman1975]

Updated version of the naming convention tables. Hopefully, it's legible enough:

Still testing Epic speed, progress feels about as slow as the game speed itself...

 

[askmarcoanything]

Fantastic Sketch!

>Additionally, I'm not sure about originating city as a suffix for Industrial and later melee/gunpowder units.

I personally think that it would be a nice touch to continue to include city names as the game presses further. In the sketch, i think you should an example for when unit's upgrade to LBE, as mentioned in post 115, maybe just some clarifying notes on when 4 and 5 are used:

>Using the Brit example from 1880, et al, I think of all the examples, I'd prefer this: "19th Yeomanry Infantry Division (York)" - we're still keeping the "Yeomanry" historical name (from 19th Company of Yeomanry (York)

It also seems that Yeoman Archer lives in LBE. Any ideas what to change it to by that point due to the transition of Volley Weapons (A continuation of Machine Gun?)?

Super happy to have the opportunity to help you illustrate the different parts of the unit namer, can't wait when it comes online.

 

[sman1975]

Quick update. Have the Standard and Epic game speeds working well enough. Am progressing fairly well through Quick speed now. All of the code, except the namer script, has been added to the mod, and I'm testing those things now - especially the Events code. I think it turned out pretty well, actually. Still tweaking them to make sure they aren't game breaking, but also aren't trivial either. Another balance problem...

I've started working on the namer script, according to the chart in Post #116. Will take a bit of time to work through that, but I'm also about to start work on the timing for the Marathon, which will also take some time just to test timing.

If anyone is interested in a bit of research, I could use some help: mostly looking for Great General names for the "primary" players in the Ancient World (e.g. Rome, Carthage, Greece (any flavor), Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Celts, Germans, China, and Japan). Any number would be nice, but I'm looking for about 20-30+ each. Names don't have to be military leaders - political or commercial leaders will be fine as well. While I'm not necessarily looking to Civ-specific unit names (in their original language), I'd still like to have good names for the Great Generals, Admirals, and Field Marshal units. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

 

[askmarcoanything]

I was wondering if you are still open to taking other suggestions?

One of the mods i have played before having experienced yours was Noel's Earth 1939 and (to an earlier extent) Earth 2014. Essentially, its a huge Earth map with civilization's placed in the correct places. Unfortunately, your mod is not compatible with 1939, so i haven't had a chance to experience both.

I know you have a similar WW2 scenario mod, but thats very "Atlantic" focused; Playing the mod on a Global scale would be a great experienced.

Maybe different eras could be explored globally as well: First World War? 2021?

 

[YINGCHENG]

Hi Sman, I would love to do some research for military generals’ names for each civ. So far I have got those in below.
Assyrian
1. Shamshi-Adad I (conquered lands across much of Syria, Anatolia and Upper Mesopotamia for the old Assyrian empire.)
2. Ashur-Uballit I (his reign marked Assyria's ascendancy over the Hurri-Mitanni Empire, and the beginning of its emergence as a powerful empire.)
3. Adad-Nirari I (achieved major military victories that further strengthened Assyria)
4. Shalmaneser I (He conquered the whole country from Taidu to Irridu, from Mount Kashiar to Eluhat, and from the fortresses of Sudu and Harranu to Carchemish on the Euphrates. He built palaces at Assur and Nineveh, restored the "world-temple" at Assur)
5. Tukulti-Ninurta I (He is known as the first king to use the title "King of Kings".)
6. Tiglath-Pileser I (was "one of the two or three great Assyrian monarchs. He expanded Assyrian control into Anatolia and Syria, and to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.)
7. Ashur-dan II (He was best known for recapturing previously held Assyrian territory and restoring Assyria to its natural borders.)
8. Shamshi-Adad (conquered lands across much of Syria, Anatolia, and Upper Mesopotamia for the Old Assyrian Empire.)


Babylonian
1. Hammurabi (best known for having issued the code of Hammurabi. Was revered as a great conqueror who spread civilization and forced all peoples to pay obeisance to Babylon.)
2. Burnaburiash I (was the first Kassite who really ruled over Babylonia, possibly the first to occupy the city of Babylon proper around 1500 BC, culminating a century of creeping encroachment by the Kassite tribes)


Chinese
1. Yu the Great (a legendary king in ancient china, the founder of the Xia dynasty.)
2. Cheng Tang (the first king of the Shang dynasty, he overthrew jie, the last ruler of the Xia Dynasty.)
3. Ji Fa (the first king of the Zhou dynasty. Is considered one of the great heroes of China, together with Yellow emperor and Yu the Great.)
4. Xiao Bai (was the ruler of the state of Qi, living during the chaotic Spring and Autumn period, as the Zhou dynasty’s formal vassal states fought each other for supremacy. He managed to transform Qi into China’s most powerful polity.
5. Chong’er (was the rule of the state of Jin, living during the chaotic Spring and Autumn period. He led Jin to become hegemony over the other Chinese states of his time.
6. Wu Qi (was a Chinese military leader, legalist philosopher and politician in the warring states period)
7. Sun Bin (was a Chinese general, military strategist, and writer who lived during the warring states period)
8. Shang Yang (was a statesman, chancellor and reformer serving the State of Qin during the warring state period)
9. Xiang Yu (was Hegemon king of western Chu during the Chu-Han contention.)
10. Han Xin (was a military general who served Liu Bang during the Chu-Han contention, and contributed greatly to the founding of the Han Dynasty)
11. Wei Qing (was a famous Western Han military general acclaimed for his campaigns against the Xiongnu.
12. Li Guang (was a Chinese general of the western Han dynasty. Nicknamed “Flying General” by the Xiongnu.
13. Cao Cao (was a Chinese warlord. One of the central figure of the Three kingdoms period.)
14. Gao Xianzhi (was a Tang dynasty general of Goguryeo descent. He was known for taking fighting against the Abbasid Caliphate.)
15. Yue Fei (was a Chinese military general who lived during the Southern Song dynasty. He was best known for leading Southern Song forces in the wars in the 12th century between Southern Song and the Jurchen-ruled Jin dynasty in northern China)


Egyptian
1. Narmer （His establishment of Memphis as a single Egyptian Capital, brings an end to pre-dynastic Egypt）
2. Khasekhem (Under his rule, Egypt entered into the third dynasty, a time of peace and prosperity during which Egypt’s pyramid-builders were able to develop their art.)
3. Djoser (The Egyptian bureaucracy began to settle into shape under his rule.)
4. Sneferu （was the founding father of the fourth dynasty of Egypt. He built at least three pyramids that survives to this day. He was able to capture large numbers of people from other nations to undertake massive building projects.）
5. Mentuhotep II (is credited with reuniting Egypt, ending the first turbulent intermediate period and becoming the first pharaoh of the middle kingdom.)
6. Amenemhat I (was the first rule of the 12th dynasty, which is considered to be the golden age of the middle kingdom.)
7. Ahmose I (during his reign, he completed the conquest and expulsion of the Hyksos, restored Theban rule over the whole of Egypt and successfully reasserted Egyptian power in its formerly subject territories of Nubia and Canaan)
8. Thutmose III (He created the largest empire Egypt had ever seen; no fewer than 17 campaigns were conducted)
9. Akhenaten (Introduced Atenism to Egypt.)
10. Herihor (was an Egyptian army officer and high priest of Amun at Thebes during the reign of Pharaoh Ramesses XI)
11. Shoshenq I (pursued an aggressive foreign policy in the adjacent territories of middle east during his reign)
12. Osorkon II (Osorkon II's reign was a time of prosperity for Egypt and large-scale monumental building ensued)